All right.

We'll call the Plan Commission meeting for Wednesday, January 28th, 2026 to order.

Please stand for the Pledge of Allegiance.

I pledge of allegiance to the flag of the United States of America.

Justice Raw.

Okay, um, next item is roll call.

Um Commissioner Molson is unable to attend tonight.

And we have present here, Keller, Frank Core, Wells, Riley, Walner, and Granger.

Um, so we do have a quorum.

Um next item is public comment.

And uh for Plan Commission, we allow public comment um under the agenda items.

If you wish to speak um under anything that's on the agenda, you'll be able to do so um during the course of the meeting when that item comes up.

Um, but if you have limited time or you want to make comments about anything else, you're welcome to come to the microphone now.

Okay, we'll close public comment.

Next item is approval of the minutes of December 17th, 2025 and December 22nd uh 2025.

I'll make a motion to approve those minutes.

Commissioner Keller seconds.

Uh any discussion.

Okay.

Uh all in favor signify by saying aye.

Aye.

Any opposed?

Any abstaining.

So that motion passes unanimously.

And that is both minutes.

Next item is certified survey map for 1901 South Prairie Avenue.

Uh this is to approve a one lot CSM combining three parcels uh covering 34.817 acres of land owned by Weldall.

Um and it's in the M2 General Manufacturing District at the South End of Prairie.

Um what we do is um staff will provide a short overview.

Um, then the common council common council.

Plan commission can answer questions, uh ask questions, and we would then open it up to anyone who wishes to make comments from the public uh and then bring it back to the plan commission.

So Robin, um go ahead.

Yes, thank you.

I'm really confused because your name tags are switched.

We're switching for granicus.

Uh so yes, this is a certified survey map for uh the wild law property at 1901 South Prairie Avenue.

Um here is the uh site right here, just on the north side of uh Les Paul Parkway to the east of uh prairie.

And then here's a close-up view of that property.

So they've had some projects come before us in the past, um the past year with some new buildings and some other things.

So they're actually it's a good actually a uh one lot CSM uh from four lots.

So um the fourth one is right here uh next to the railroad track up there.

So I highlighted the uh four different um individual parcels that are being made up into the one lot uh certified survey map for a total of 34.817 acres.

So with that, staff recommends approval of the certified survey map for 1901 South Prairie Avenue with following conditions that all engineering, fire department, and water utility comments to be addressed.

Okay, um questions to staff.

I guess one question is is this has been operated as one lot for probably 40-50 years or so.

I would assume yeah, they own the four those four individual parcels, but just in case in the future with more buildings and things, it would uh help with setback requirements um by doing a one-lot CSM instead of having the individual parcels and cleaner too.

Um anyone from the public wish to comment.

All right, back to the plan commission.

Um I'll make a motion to uh recommend approval of the certified survey map for 1901 South Prairie Avenue.

Um with a second, we'll okay.

We have a second.

Um any discussion.

All right, all in favor, signify by saying aye.

Aye.

Any opposed, any abstaining?

That passes unanimously.

Okay, the next one is also certified survey map for 400 Wilmont Drive.

This is to approve a one-lot CSM, which combines two parcels um one and Robin.

That's you again.

Uh yes, so this is for uh Superior Crane at 400 Wilmont Um Drive.

So here's the uh two parcels that they'll be combining into a one lot CSM.

This one's to the south of Les Paul Parkway and to the east of Southwest Avenue, then on Wilmont Drive, and then a close-up view.

Uh superior crane does have some of the um uh other parcels and buildings currently on uh the sites on the north side of Wilmont Drive.

They're looking to combine uh those the two parcels I had highlighted into one lot um to because they're they're gonna be coming back um to a future plan commission meeting uh with a site plan and architecture review uh architecture review for a um new uh building on this lot.

So just kind of a site plan or kind of an overview of what they're proposing that you'll see at a future meeting.

So they are looking to combine into that one lot.

Okay, so yep, go ahead.

Uh staff recommends approval of the certified survey map for 400 Wilmont Drive with found conditions that all engineering fire department and water utility comments would be addressed.

All right.

Um same as before.

This is just basically cleaning up the property.

Um comment is I saw the Freeman had an article which would some people would anticipate that this is approval of the um all the work that's being done out there.

This is just combining the lot the two lots into one lots.

Correct.

I think they saw the cover letter that it was in advance of a 31,000 square foot building, but it was just for a certified survey map.

Okay, any comment from the public.

All right.

Go ahead.

Uh thank you, Mayor.

I move for the staff recommendation and comments.

Commissioner Keller.

Seconds.

Any discussion?

All right.

All in favor, signified by saying aye.

Aye.

Any opposed?

Any abstaining?

That motion passes unanimously.

Next item is final site plan and architectural review for Prairie Song Courtyards.

Uh, this is from Belinsky Homes to approve plans for multifamily residential development consisting of three four-unit buildings and two six unit buildings on 4.03 acres um along the south side of Summit.

And Charlie.

All right.

So this is uh the uh property on the south side of Summit, about uh between a quarter and a half mile to the west of Meadowbrook Road.

Uh so to orient you, the um Meadowbrook uh shopping center uh with the the Sendex uh grocery store is uh right at that intersection there, and it's just up the road from there.

Um as you can see, uh the property is uh currently undeveloped, and it is also actually currently two parcels, so that'll it'll have to be combined uh before it can be uh before it can be built on.

Uh the applicant is aware of that, and they have a certified survey map, uh, which they plan to submit for a future approval.

Um it has, however, already been rezoned uh to RM2 PUD and it received PUD site plan architecture review uh and the rezoning uh in uh 2019.

Uh so they're just coming back for uh for approval since the uh site plan approval had expired.

Uh so the proposal is for uh a 24 unit uh condominium development uh in five buildings that'll be two six-unit buildings and two four unit buildings around a shared uh driveway and courtyard uh on the property.

Uh so just to run through the history of it, it was approved by the plan commission December 11th, 2019, and by the council December 17th of 2019.

Um, and then the site plan architecture review expires after two years, so that would have been uh the end of 2021.

Um, but it the the rezoning, the PUD approval is is still valid.

Uh this is almost exactly uh what was approved in 2019, but there are a few minor changes.

Uh they are now condominiums when previously they were gonna be apartments, um, which obviously doesn't come into the uh the plan commission's approval, uh, but it is uh noteworthy.

Uh all the units will have front-facing garages and entrances now, and then there are some minor changes to landscaping and lighting.

So this is the the site plan from 2019.

You can see building one uh on the south end and building two uh on the west end uh had uh side facing garages, and this is the current site plan.

You can see they're all uh they're all front-facing garages, these are all uh facing in towards the uh the courtyard rather than out towards the road, so staff is comfortable with this configuration.

Um this is the elevation of the front of the building from uh 2019.

Um you can see there were some hip roofs uh at the uh along the peaks there, and then also uh side entries on for the side uh units.

Uh so those have been replaced.

There'll be front facing entries for all the units now, and then those roofs will extend uh up to the peaks, uh, but they will still have the same uh similar uh configuration for the siding.

Um just to go into uh some further history of the property.

Um this is a proposal for it was called the Capran Ray development, which included this property as well as uh of a larger uh area to the south.

Uh it was a larger development of mostly two family with uh these were I believe going to be six unit uh developments, and so these were the renderings that were submitted for that uh that proposal.

Uh as you can see from the year this was uh proposed and I believe approved in 2008.

Um obviously the that was impacted by the the recession at that time and never went uh never went forward.

Uh so this is the property as it is now.

Uh it's open uh in the central area, but there is uh a tree line around the south uh as well as the north along Summit Avenue and to the west.

Uh so that does provide some screening.

Um going back to the site plan again, it's uh 24 units and five buildings.

Uh they each each unit will have uh two-car garage.

Uh so they have uh noted that as uh four parking spaces plus six uh visitor parking spaces for the development, so that's about four and a quarter spaces per unit.

Um they will be extending the sidewalk along along Summit Avenue from where it currently ends uh just uh to the west of the property uh all the way to the the what will be the driveway uh but will be at the at the street intersection uh will be a fully uh a fully built out street.

Uh it'll be the end of Prairie Song Drive.

Um Prairie Song Drive currently ends at the south end of the property to the west.

Uh and if and when that property is ever developed, uh it will extend up along the property uh to intersect with Summit at this uh at the edge of uh this development.

And uh so here's an a another uh view of that which was submitted in 2019.

So you can see uh the prairie sung villas, which have been uh since built at the south end of the property, and then this proposed prairie sound courtyards at the north end.

Uh so it'll be a street right-of-way coming off of summit, and then it'll uh narrow into a private drive as it gets into the uh into the development.

Um they are extending sewer and water uh from Summit Avenue.

They'll uh loop the water main from around at the uh at the driveway entrance and then back up in between buildings one and two, and then they'll extend the uh sanitary sewer as well, and they have uh easements for all of those going through the development.

And uh going back to the um the uh buildings themselves, uh they'll have uh masonry uh veneer along the front facing uh sides up to the peaks of the of the garages, and then also extending in in a foundation, uh a foundation layer around the edges of the garages, and uh they'll also have uh some articulation uh at the front of the of the units themselves, or you can see the windows uh will be in a little bit of a um a little bit of a uh a different um differences in in the plane there.

Um the two the four unit buildings and the six-unit buildings will look uh almost identical except for the extra units.

Um so they've provided the the rear rear elevations as well.

Uh the the in addition to the masonry siding, uh they'll have some the the remainder of the siding will be uh vinyl uh lap siding with uh alternating colors in the different sections.

Um and each of the units will have both a private entrance on the front and a private either patio in the in the case of the ones that will be uh at ground level in the rear or a private deck in the case of the ones of uh several with uh with uh basements uh that are partially revealed.

And they've also provided the uh rear elevation for the six unit buildings, which will be uh the same uh and and will have the the masonry course extending down to the ground and up to the uh the the um level of the first floor and again the masonry will extend uh to the to the around the uh garages but will not extend around uh the the rest of the sides of the building uh so that will be vinyl lap uh siding for the uh remainder of those uh elevations.

The units themselves will be 1500 square feet, uh three bed, two and a half baths, so you can see the first level, uh the living space, and then the garages in front, and then the second level, uh the three bedrooms and the two baths, uh, with the third bedroom extending out over the garages.

So the the uh four family are uh are very similar uh in uh their floor plans.

The uh the south of the property and extending uh south onto the adjacent properties is an isolated natural resource area.

So that's uh the the boundary of that is highlighted in red here.

Uh this development will extend a little bit into that uh isolated natural research resource area uh at the south end of the property.

Uh you can see the um stormwater will be in two uh in rain gardens at in the center of the courtyard, and then also uh in the north northeast corner, and then also in a pond uh at the south end of the property, and there will be some removal of trees for that, uh, but it is permitted to have rainwater uh storm water uh in the isolated natural resource area uh since it is considered to be green space, uh but we have asked that that trees that are removed will be replaced.

Uh for landscaping, they have shown uh significant landscaping in the yard areas, a mixture of um of shade trees and evergreen trees in the yard areas around the buildings, and then also foundation plantings around the the edges of the buildings themselves, the smaller uh shrubs and and grasses.

Um along the north uh property boundary uh adjacent to Summit Avenue, uh they'll be adding some uh some short uh landscape walls to protect some of those existing trees.

Uh they will be also removing some trees.

Uh so we would like to see a uh tree survey of which trees will be removed and then any native trees uh will need to be replaced.

Um but they are adding those those landscape walls uh to protect some of those trees.

As you can see, there's a pretty significant uh drop off from uh from the road down to where the sidewalk will be.

This is the existing sidewalk where it ends uh at the west end of the property, and then here's where it will extend uh to the east side of the property.

They'll also be replacing that uh uh traffic barrier along uh along Summit Avenue there.

Another uh wall uh to on the uh east side of building three, uh right at the uh driveway entrance to the uh development will be about three to four feet high, and that will have stone that it's colored to match the masonry on the buildings.

Uh they will be providing lighting uh throughout the development uh in uh through these coach uh fixtures on poles or on the fronts of the garages.

Uh so they have the spots where those will be located highlighted here will be two on either on each garage, as well as uh um in the courtyard at the entrance, and then in the uh in that rain garden area.

Um so staff recommends approval of final site plan and architecture review with the conditions that the certified survey map uh will be approved and recommended and uh recorded prior to the issuance of building permits.

Uh the PUD agreement for the property uh must be finalized and signed and recorded before building permits can be issued as well, and uh any native trees that are removed in the isolated natural resource area or the tree lines to the west and north lot lines along the west and north lines uh will need to be replaced with appropriate native species.

Uh so they need to provide a tree survey in detail on the trees identified for removal and replacement trees should be shown on a revised landscape plan.

Uh and also engineering fire department and water UDLD comments will be addressed.

Okay, questions.

Go ahead.

Joel, and then you know, thank you, Mayor.

Um Charlie, has there been an interaction with the neighbors?

Uh that you're aware of?

Not that I'm aware of for this uh development.

I believe there was some interaction in 2019.

I don't know if there has been now.

I'm sorry.

Uh I don't know.

I don't know if there has been uh for this uh more recent uh when they brought it back for approval.

I I believe there was in 2019.

Okay, could could probably and I may also correct that because this was a PUD it goes before the common council?

Uh it won't have to go back before the council.

It would not.

It did, it did at that time, but since it's a very similar to what was approved, uh it it'll just be the planning commission approval.

Thank you.

Commissioner Keller.

Charlie, um five years ago or so, uh I guess we approved this.

In in the city planning guidelines, we have this sort of I'll call it anti-monotony law.

And so for some reason, and I'll let the developer explain.

We've taken off all the side-loaded garages and made them all in the front, which basically is counterintuitive to the monotony code that we have on file in the city.

Uh, could you explain how that happened?

Um yeah, I guess I I the developer might uh the applicant uh okay.

Explain that John, do you want to come up?

Sure.

So I I guess just to kind of set the table here in 2019 we did spend a lot of time on this development.

Um COVID, I'm pretty sure was the reason why it wasn't built, but uh um there was a lot of um numerous meetings where we worked through all the details of the development.

So go ahead, John.

Yeah, in regards to uh Mr.

Keller's question uh side driveways, I think there was only was I'm not positive, but I thought there was only two.

Yep.

And one of them was between um buildings four and the southern end of one, which really didn't give much privacy to the side areas of of the of that um between buildings four and one.

It would be on it was on the south.

I don't remember which other building it was, maybe two, I think on the left side.

We just feel with all the driveways being and the buildings designed into the courtyard, nobody will from far or from the boundaries or from summit see any of the garage doors from uh that area.

So we just felt that would be best to design it with all the garage doors facing inward uh and to be uniform.

I understand why you you feel that way, I guess.

I feel differently for purposes of uh seeing the same thing over and over.

Um so again, I think the the city's planning department maybe let you go with with that justification.

My perception is should have left it the way it is.

Um 24 units, and so two garage doors out of 24 is not much of a concession.

Since we did approve this five or six years ago, I guess my perception was to leave it the way it was.

I don't think the garage doors cost any more if they're in different locations.

Asphalt's the same.

Um so I don't think it's a cost issue.

I think it's uh my perception it's aesthetic issue.

So my argument is to leave them the same as they were before.

And I don't know if the privacy issue of having your garages are open.

Everybody's got junk in their garage.

I guess that's all fair, but um I don't know.

I just don't see it.

If you want to respond, I don't really have much to respond.

Your perception, I just think is uh there's one driveway moving in here.

You're not even gonna see the side driveway or the garages when they're built.

So you'd have to actually enter into a private area in order to see this.

You're not gonna see it from the roads of Summit Avenue or from Prairie Swan Courtyards that would be extended.

So we just felt it would be important just to be more uniform and to build the buildings that and design them so that we don't have to.

I understand your argument, but it's the sameness that I'm trying to get away from the well.

Well, um I don't think I can give you what you want, but um we would like to stay with what we have.

Um Commissioner Wells.

Different tact.

I I'm curious what the process is to change a street name, because I understand this will eventually connect to Prairie Song, but the cross street on 18 Summit is Woodland Hills, and so it seems a little until it goes through, it's a little confusing that it would be Prairie Song, even though Prairie Song doesn't go through, just from a wayfinding and navigation standpoint.

It might be another well, I don't know if we've got plans to extend Prairie Song.

Um I know the original drawings we had up here were from that 2000.

2008 was I mean it just it could be another 15 years before prairie song goes through.

Probably won't be, but I'm just curious what that would look like.

I know changing addresses and street names isn't a small task.

I believe that was uh the public works department that had asked to have the to have the prairie sign drive name.

Uh they thought that summit was uh a good um a good divider between to the north and this to have it a different name to the north and uh uh between the north and the south.

Uh they thought that was the the least confusing way to do it, I guess.

So I guess my question is how big an imposition will it be for it to be Woodland Hills Drive until the street connects through and gets renamed.

So logistically from like the city's perspective.

Sure, and I remembered some discussions with public works um six, seven years ago on this, and they felt now would be the time to name it prairie song because to have to go back and change those addresses, change street signs, and it would just create more confusion in the future if they wouldn't just have it set up now for the prairie song extension.

Okay.

Well, and I guess I just want to comment.

I don't think it's ever going to be extended um between the two properties uh north and south.

We may want to consider having this called prairie song drive south or something.

Is it is it prairie song on the on the bottom part?

Yeah, because you'll drive in there thinking you'll be able to get through, and you won't.

And because it's uh uh doing anything in between the two developments is gonna be very difficult because it's environmental corridor uh all the way in between there.

So maybe uh if there is an approval of this that it at least be the prairie song, if it remains, it also be labeled north and south.

Um yeah, and that was bounced around in the past.

Um, but the city has its north-south designations for streets, and this is all on a northern section, so it they wouldn't address it with a north and a south because that would create even more confusion.

I'm just worried about like Google Google maps, and you're gonna get on Prairie Song.

Sure, and as far as the you had mentioned the connection, it's all corridor between them, but the property to the east that the owner is still holding out on developing is where the road would go up and through to connect.

Oh you can see where the yellow arrows are there.

That's where the proposed connection route would be for Prairie Song.

And I believe uh Prairie Song is already established on the southern end.

Because we have Prairie Song Courtyards where the condos is, and there's a dead end road there that will this road will connect to, and I believe that's already been named Prairie Song.

Sure, both of these streets have been named Prairie Song.

So on this image, which are the properties that can still be developed?

I guess which one's the environmental corridor and which the environmental corridor is between the um prairie song duplexes to the south, okay, and this proposed parcel to the north.

There's that rectangular shape of real dense woods that butts up to the back of the um duplexes along Century Oak Drive to the west.

Okay.

That's the corridor.

Um, and then where the yellow arrows are, that's more um scrub trees that have grown up in fallow fields.

There's no corridor identified on that larger eastern portion.

So that larger plot is developable.

Yes.

Okay.

Okay.

Yeah.

There's I think the uh boundary is identified on this on this slide.

There's a uh there's it it goes a little bit past where the property lines are, but uh you can see the this kind of curving line here is the is the boundary.

Okay.

I guess the public works has looked into it.

So I mean, sure.

Trying to refer to public works.

I just was curious what that would look like.

Do you have more?

That's all I have.

Right.

Commissioner Frank Court.

Oh, thank you, Mayor.

Um, John, here we are again, right?

In terms of development.

I'm wondering, did you have any interaction with the neighbors in regards to this current proposal?

I have not, no.

Um that's disappointing to me because of all the input from the neighbors that we got when we went through this once before.

Um I wonder, Charlie, if you would put the exhibit up that you had of the proposal that was approved.

There is very little difference.

Um if you looked at my summary sheet um from Balinski on the bottom, there were about five points that mod were modified to the whole site.

Yes, I I did read them.

And Charlie, I wanted the exhibit of the prior approval.

Yes, thank you.

Um I guess I would like to say that I'm very aware this is a different time, a different developer, a different plan commission, and uh the the neighbors may be different as well.

So in reflecting back about the work that we did, the staff did, the plan commission did, the neighbors did, and the developer did over a ser uh series of meetings and times, that we were at the end able to be very proud of what we did.

One of the things we did do was to encourage the um the less use of garages as the front piece of the property, the entrance please.

And excuse me, I don't know what my voice is doing.

Um concerns me as it does Commissioner Keller, uh, that that's a predominant feature of your proposal.

In addition, it's a repetitive feature of your proposal.

If we look at this multifamily unit that's on the screen right now, it too has garages, but for some reason they recede.

They're not the dominant portion of the exhibit.

So rather than going through all of this, first of all, I wanted to thank Charlie and Doug for finding this.

I thought it might be helpful for the commission to see what had been uh developed before in comparison to what is being proposed now.

And um I'm interested in what the other commissioners' comments have to be.

Well, just in just in all fair fairness, Joan, the um the proposal is a 2008.

The our proposal was approved for apartments in 2019.

I would think the people that live in the area would be very happy that they are going to be condominiums and ownership instead of apartments.

And I think that our prior discussions were uh um ended up by saying if we're going to have multi-unit types of structures, they are being near summit is the appropriate place.

So we had a ready kind of um adapted to that.

And I admire other commissioners on this panel when they make comments and then they say, here are the specific things that I would have liked to have seen or request that they be considered.

So I would like to do that with your indulgence here.

Um first of all, I would have liked the buildings to look different from one another, not the same.

Secondly, I I wished that the garages were not the dominant feature.

And it's not just that they don't face summit and that the public doesn't have to see them, but the people who are living there have to see them and have to see that all the buildings are not unique, but in their um, I think Commissioner Keller used the word monotonous, but they are the same instead of taking the opportunity to have some variety, and the the roof lines, if you look at the exhibit here, um serve the purpose of the building, but also give some variety and some interest and excitement, if you will, to the building itself and the materials themselves.

I noticed in your proposal that you also have a variety of materials that you're using, but they're quite different than the ones that we looked at in the past.

So I I'm glad that we're having the opportunity to discuss this.

I'm appreciative of the staff of finding these plans from the past, and I'll be interested to see what other commissioners think.

Thank you.

Okay, um, just one comment from me, which is um uh I have harped on the planning commission for the last 12 years that whether it's apartments or condos is immaterial to our decisions.

Um we have to also take so that's usually when people are when developers are proposing um apartment buildings.

Um I continue to say that you state law says you you don't consider whether it's multifamily, it doesn't matter whether it's how it's owned.

Um so I just need to say um that in this case we can't go the opposite way and say because it's um condos, we're gonna give it additional um consideration.

However, I will recognize that um I've heard from many people that they would much rather be living next to a condo development than uh than a multifamily uh apartment lease type of thing.

But I just want to make sure that I put that out there.

Anyone else I will comment to um Commissioner Frank Corey's comment, and I think you said it a few times, these were in the past.

This is now, so this is a different time.

And I'm new to the commission, so you know, take that as as you will.

But if I had never seen these, now these are lovely, don't get me wrong from 2008.

But if I had never seen them, I design has changed, materials have changed, colors have changed, all of that has changed from what was in 2008.

So the way I see it is yes, the garages are the focal point, but if you look at many condo developments, that's how they're set up.

A lot of houses are set up that way.

I don't really see, I don't take issue with it.

Um I understand other comments that don't prefer it, um, but that's where I stand.

And just so everyone also recognizes there was a approval in 2008.

There's also approval in 2019.

Um what's been shown um in the in the presentation was the approval from 2019 compared to what's being presented now, just so everyone's aware.

Commissioner Wells.

So uh I share Commissioner Frank Kore's frustration.

Understand that 2008 proposal is not the one that's been given to us, and these are not very far away from the 2019 approvals.

Um I guess my frustration is we see this same architectural style almost consistently from 2019.

It's it's siding with a small stone wrap garages at the front.

Um I guess I can approve this one.

It's very similar to what we approved in 2019.

I would like to see something different.

I know that's not just a Balinski thing.

I we have this is the style, this is what is cost effective to build with the materials and what's available.

Um I guess I miss the the old days where a neighborhood would have variety within itself.

Single family would have a mid-sentry modern next to two-door next to um you'd have a variety of of household styles.

Um now we put in developments and it's the same house with very small variations in materials or slightly different floor plan, but it's it all looks the same.

Um I don't know that we can fix that with one development, but I would like to see something different coming forward.

Um obviously the cells, obviously it's cost effective.

Um I just feel like I've seen the same same style multiple times.

The siding changes slightly.

Where the stone goes changes very slightly from building to building, but you know, it's there's no real way to tell these apart.

Okay.

Commissioner Keller.

John, you as a developer have uh a bag of tricks.

And your bag of tricks include everything you've done, everything you've seen, and everything that we'll call it fits within the budget.

And so my argument to you is that um you can change these buildings a bunch of different ways without effectively changing your budget.

So maybe it's the color of the sliding, maybe it's where the gable end goes, maybe it's where the front door goes.

I'm not advocating that you change the floor plan because I think they seem to work.

I'm just saying there's a bunch of different ways to make this look a little more interesting without fracturing your budget.

And I'm hoping that you have people on your staff that can help you do that, because I think it's very possible.

Go ahead.

I agree you when I look at this, it's very boring when you look around that subdivision or that development.

If I would drive in there, I think I would have a hard time knowing if my friend lives at building one, two, three, or four, and that may provide some confusion as a guest.

However, if I'm a person who is looking for a condo like this and I enjoy it, I think it would be their choice to move into it.

I also think about how this is set back a bit from some.

We aren't gonna see that these are all necessarily lined up in a row, looking that it's one cookie cutter house after another.

You won't really notice it so much unless you drive into it.

But I do think that we could add some interest by varying which way the garage faces or roof lines or something to make each building a little bit more distinguished to make this more interesting.

This may be for John or for Charlie, but uh if a garage is um not front facing put to the side, is that increase the number the um pavement, you know.

I don't believe so, but uh if John has uh talking the impervious space, yes.

Well it more blacktop, basically.

Oh, yeah, taking it away from one side to another.

All right.

Any other questions?

John, anything more?

Yeah, I'd like I just like to you know, I I kind of felt like this was a revision uh of approval that was already done in 2019.

Um we obviously modified the buildings.

Maybe there was a reason why we didn't move forward with the original buildings that were in 2019.

I'll be honest, the only reason we haven't moved forward is we've been busy in the city of Waukeshaw doing other projects, and this one wasn't in the forefront for us to move forward with during the time frame.

I think if you look at the surrounding area specifically, this is tree lined on three sides with an environmental corridor.

It in the summer for nine months out of the year, you're going to barely see these buildings.

You can barely see the grass.

If Charlie went out and took the pictures that he showed you in regards to the area, you have to actually drive in there to see it.

It is so there's a complete tree line, and then if you look at the extensiveness of the design of the landscaping on the site buildings and on the site itself, you will see that once you get in there, this is going to be what I would consider a very quaint quiet, very well landscaped with a rain garden in the middle of the island with all of the amenities that everybody wants.

We do have two buildings, but I believe it's buildings.

There's two buildings that have partial exposures that'll have decks, the rest of them will have patios.

When you drive by for nine months, you you won't see this building.

You won't see the buildings.

We like the color scheme because it uh kind of blends in with the environment that's out there.

So um we're looking for hopefully for you guys to approve this tonight so that we can move forward.

Any other questions?

That's what I'm here for.

Thank you.

Okay.

Back to the plan commission.

Anyone else wish to speak?

I'm assuming that the three over here are for one specific issue later.

Um, back to the plan commission.

Um I guess one comment is is I do recall that we did spend a lot of time on the how the garage door is faced.

There was I think it was kind of a compromise that two would be offset, um, and the rest of them would be front front facing.

Um but uh I I guess I do have one question.

John, if this is approved, is Balinski gonna start construction this year.

It is uh it is on our project list for construction this year.

This project will take probably 90 days or less to construct so that we can move forward to building.

So wait a second, when 90 days to construct the the the site development.

Okay, all right.

So three months to do the prepare the right so by fall there should be buildings planned.

Okay.

All right, thank you.

And I'm not if you put a condition down where you think the two buildings really really need they have the sidecar garages for two of the 24 units.

I will give you that.

But I really don't believe it's a it's a deal breaker.

Well, uh I'll start it out in that I'll make a motion to approve the PUD final spar for Prairie Song Courtyards subject to the conditions of the staff.

I'll second.

Okay.

So this is not including additional side yard garages.

I guess I just want to move forward and see where we're at.

Um and I'm kind of more of the from I guess where I'm coming from is as I'd much rather have this thing um start this spring uh and be completed um as opposed to 203 quick comment.

I I don't know that the two side facing garages is worth the squeeze on this.

It it doesn't for me it doesn't substantially improve.

It's not enough of an improvement on this site to really insist on it.

Um that's still a lot of I mean it's only two.

Uh one's kind of buried at the back of the of the site, the others up at the top.

Um I guess I would I would be fine with it as this, and then with the expectation that we really want to see some newer architectural styles, some real differences on future developments.

Joe?

Uh thank you, Mayor.

I guess what I would like to say is that it's been mentioned that there's a desire to have a movement away from the predominance of garages and the monotony of a repetitive design, and that we hope sometime in the future that that might evolve.

I think tonight my way of seeing that that might happen in the future is to not support this.

I respect uh the sport coming from the other members of the commission, and from what I can figure from sitting here, I believe John, you're going to get your approval.

Um so I have very rarely, I'm trying to remember if I have ever voted um in a negative fashion, either against the staff recommendation or the you know the feeling of the rest of the commission, but here I am.

Uh tonight's the night, and the reason that I'm doing that is to make as strong as possible the statement about uh the things that we mentioned before about the monotony, about the garages being dominant, and about some of the variety.

So I think I've said enough tonight.

And we're not done.

RT, go ahead.

So John, you'd mentioned that the the site is surrounded by trees and want people to see it for six, seven months a year.

I always pity the people that come home late on uh either New Year's Eve or St.

Patrick's Day and walk into the wrong door because they all look alike.

Um I would argue that some changes need to be made for the tenants themselves.

It's not just the people that drive by.

The people who are going five miles an hour are gonna look at the same thing over and over 24 times.

So for me, it's about changing the elevations at least in the courtyard.

Um I can live without the side garages, even though I think the city's requirement says that you need to do some of that.

But I think you need to up your game a little bit for the units as they face the courtyard.

And I think you can do that without affecting the cost.

Uh and I think it'll be a benefit to the development.

So maybe that's a change in color, maybe it's moving the materials around, maybe it's adding a window and taking another window out.

All kinds of bag of tricks.

Um my argument is I don't have a problem with the development, but I do have the problem with the way it looks, at least internally.

So my vote's gonna be no.

But I don't want to uh hold your development, so I'm happy to approve the site development grading and all the things that you can get started.

But I'd like to recommend that you come back with some suggestions on how you might upgrade the internal elevations of the buildings.

And Commissioner Frank Cruer is not done.

Please you wanted to say something more?

Oh, I thought you did.

No, I'm I'm happy to hear you speak.

All right, anyone else?

Okay, so the motion is to approve the final site plan and architectural review uh for prairie song courtyards um subject to staff comments.

Um that's not this is doesn't include changing anything from what's been presented.

All in favor, let's do it this way.

Um all in favor signify by saying aye.

Aye.

Opposed.

Okay, so the motion passes four to two.

And I fully understand where Commissioner Frank Hoor and Keller are coming from because I do remember this um proposal when it came through before, and we did spend a significant amount of time on it.

The goal was to make it uh so it wasn't monotonous.

Um I think it is kind of um accepted by many of us that it is monotonous and the in the interior for the people who would who would be purchasing the units.

All right.

Um next item is final site plan and architectural review 2310 Fox Run Boulevard.

This is for uh approved plans for a new 63 unit three-story multifamily residential building.

Um in the within the Fox Run mixed use planned unit development.

Doug.

Thank you.

Um, if you recall our last meeting at the end of last year, um, this was uh somewhat before you there was a PUD amendment for this development.

Um this is the the Fox Run shopping center, or was the shopping center now?

It's a mixed use development at the corner of St.

Paul and Sunset Drive.

Um, and the parcel highlight in here is lot four, and uh the original P or the PUD agreement had called for lot four to be a commercial development.

Um they had requested an amendment that it be allowed to accommodate residential uses, as there are some other residential uses in this mixed use development.

Um you did agree to that and recommended that onto the council.

The council did recently approve that.

Um so now they're back with their final plans uh for a 63 unit multifamily uh development on lot four in the develop in the uh mixed use development area.

Uh so here you can just see the zoning, it is under the B5 PUD for a mixed use development.

Um here's the parcel.

It's about 2.2 acres in size.

And you can see here um there's no real direct access or views out onto St.

Paul or onto Sunset.

Um, so that was making it hard for them to attract any kind of commercial tenants.

Um so then the decision was made to try to get approval for residential development on this.

Um, directly to the west here, you can see these three buildings are uh existing multifamily buildings, about 72 units combined.

Um, and so this would be following that same architectural style with just a larger building.

These are only two-story buildings that are existing.

This would become a three-story building, um, a little larger building, but then it would also have a common amenities um uh fitness center, lounge offices that would be um available to the uh original tenants of the first, I guess, phase in this case now is how we would look at it of the development.

So here you can kind of see just the overall kind of site plan how that building will work.

So Fox Run Boulevard is a private drive that runs through the center of this um mixed-use development.

Um the building will follow the curvature of Fox Run Boulevard up here to the north would be the Aldi and Coles department store just off the screen.

Um and then there's a landmark credit union and another financial institution further to the south and east, and then the uh ascension hospitals directly to the south of this.

Um so the site plan wouldn't have a new access point coming in from the north corner here, uh the northeast corner into the to the north side of the building.

This is where the main entrance would be.

So you can see there's kind of a little drop-off circle here.

Um the main entrance would be at this location, and then surface parking um along the back, which would then tie in further to the west to the existing surface parking for the existing units farther to the west.

Um so providing connective drives across the whole development.

And as far as landscaping goes, um, they're following the similar landscape pattern of the existing buildings, we're adding trees in the front yard lining the Fox Run Boulevard, um, and then numerous foundation plantings um and decorative plantings.

Um also at the north end, uh, they'll be having additional trees planted to help make a more uh heavier buffer screen to the industrial to the north, which is the Eaton Corporation.

Uh here's the grading plan.

You can see um the topo lines here between the building foot and the boulevard, just like the other buildings.

The building will be raised up above the plane of Fox Run Boulevard.

This will allow for then underground parking to be more easily accommodated underneath the building.

Um that will occur uh underneath the entire building uh with about 65 parking spaces, I believe we're gonna be proposed underneath the building.

Um but done some very similar to the other ones.

Also by raising it up by uh several feet, creates a little separation from the street to the patios that are provided on the first floor units at grade.

Here's just the utility plan.

Water and sewer would come in off of Fox Run Boulevard.

Electrical stuff runs in off of the north end of the development.

As far as the elevations go for the buildings, they're using similar architecture to the existing Fox Den apartments and matching the colors and materials and just in different ratios, as this is a much bigger building.

So they've kind of spread out the planes and colors to accommodate that.

Added a couple other different materials in as well.

So there's two colors of brick that are being used, the darker banding along the bottom and around the garage areas, and then there's some whiter brick added in and some elements as well that go up to the top level.

Also, they've varied the wall planes or the wall plane to give a varying roof line as you can see is across all the facades of the building.

There's also two colors, two colors of that brick, as I mentioned, carried out.

There's two colors of horizontal siding or that are also carried through the building.

You can kind of see in between some of these bluer areas.

I showed a little more clearly that'll be coming up.

Otherwise, I mentioned there were patios on the first level, second level units all have balconies.

In the windows to kind of create a little more style and dimension to the building elevation.

Because the building is angled as it goes around, they did do an elevation of each plane of the building.

So that's why you see so many elevations, but they do all link together and the renderings will show that a little clearer.

As far as the floor plan goes, then here's the lower level up on the upper left with the underground parking.

That parking does access off of the Fox Run Boulevard, and then goes down around underneath the entire building.

The first level is on the eastern wing of the building, and that's to accommodate the grade level of the parking.

So they were this will start with the second level above this section.

Parking level goes uh kind of down as it goes off to the east, and then they're able to have the height to create the uh first level on this eastern wing of the first floor.

Again, the main entrance is off of the courtyard to the north.

Um, and then the upper two levels are very similar with their layout for apartments and uh floors two and three.

Um, these are mix of um about uh 63 units total with 25 studio units, 18 one-bedroom units, of which four would have a den, um, seventeen two bedroom units, and three three-bedroom units as well, uh, so they can accommodate all the different um family sizes within the building, similar to what they did with the uh previous or existing buildings.

Here's some of those renderings then to kind of show the detail a little better and the dimension.

You kind of see these uh black reveal walls that are kind of dropped in to break up the plane, blue kind of pumps bumps out a little bit farther than the the lighter colored brick.

Um, then you got the the also the beige horizontal siding.

Um, they have the white accents panels that uh kind of run through the floor levels as well, uh, creating some interest on the building.

You can see where the uh the entrance tower to the parking is kind of has a sign over it, so it's a little easier to find off of Fox Room Boulevard down on the west end, and then here would be the uh rendering kind of looking in at the uh uh kind of the parking drop-off area and the main entrance to the building, which is a large brick tower identifying that main entrance with larger windows there.

They also did provide uh photometrics uh showing how the the new parking, the surface parking would be lit up, um, and they're following the same uh material or uh lighting poles, things uh with the rest of the center.

Um so here you can see I threw in a couple of pictures of the existing buildings just to show how they use the the bricks and materials and colors.

Um, so they're kind of going with that same sort of feel to the building.

Um, they didn't use any of these multi-checkered panels on the new building, but they use those dark black reveals instead to kind of break up the bigger facades of the building.

Um you can see the the life fixtures that'll be carried out throughout as well when you get behind the new parking lot.

So at this time we would recommend approval of the 63 unit multifamily building um with all city department comments and concerns to be addressed.

Okay, questions.

Yeah.

Anyone from the public wish to speak?

Okay, back to the planning commission.

Um my comment is is that uh this is I think well, first of all, architectural needs to be spelled differently.

Um, but uh um I just saw that.

Uh I I do um appreciate that we're gonna be able to put uh um multifamily in here.

Um it's something that I actually looked at uh or the city looked at a couple years ago um that didn't really materialize uh um but uh it's been difficult to have commercial go in there.

Um and uh I've heard from many entities about how uh additional uh housing right in that area there is gonna um be very beneficial.

Um so you I think you know how I'm gonna vote.

Anyone else?

But I really appreciate the elevations and the renderings.

I think this is uh breath of fresh air compared to the last housing development that we are looking at when we're talking about creating some interest in our city.

This does with the elevations.

I really like the look of it.

All right.

If there's no more comments, I guess I'll just make the motion to approve the final site plan and architectural review for 2310 Fox Run Boulevard, subject to all staff um comments.

Okay, any discussion?

All right, all in favor, signify by saying aye.

Aye.

Any opposed?

That passes unanimously.

And I'm assuming no one abstained.

All right.

Uh Charlie, zoning code update.

All right.

Uh so I have an update on I'm sorry, real quick.

Thank you, guys.

Thank you.

Yep.

You you didn't get uh grilled.

I know.

We got easy to get off easy.

Yeah.

Make sure you tell every other developer that.

All right, Charlie.

Sorry, Charlie.

Um, I have some update on on a few um of the changes that uh the city attorney's office has recommended as part of their review of the uh of the zoning code.

And then I also had uh had gone through the uh this that proposed prairie song courtyards developments and uh gone through it with the uh uh the site plan review process that we'll hopefully be uh using um one with the new code to see how it uh measured up to it.

So I have a little bit on that too.

Um so uh just to start off uh just going through the timeline of uh of the review of the process for the zoning code uh in May and June of last year.

We had the first sections of of the code that was the district standards and use standards sections on the plan commission had uh pretty extensive discussion on those.

Um in October and November, uh we the uh consultants presented the uh development standards, design standards, access and mobility standards, landscape standards, and sign standards.

So those are all the things that uh uh that the plan commission reviews on a regular basis.

Um and then December, uh, we had the general provisions, non-conformities definitions, and then the review and decision making standards.

And of course, the plan commission had uh pretty extensive discussions about the uh review and decision making standards in October and November and December.

Um so the attorneys have been the city attorney's office has been reviewing uh the whole code uh as it's come out and and really uh they've been focusing on it uh uh over the course of this last month since uh since we had the discussion in December.

Um they've recommended a number of changes, uh, most of which are uh relatively minor changes to wording and and things like that.

Um but uh there are a few that uh that we wanted to note uh for you specifically within the uh the review and decision making standards.

Um there are a couple that they've asked us to just completely remove.

Um the administrative adjustments, uh, as you remember, we we had uh asked the consultants to remove those remove the majority of those.

Um the city attorney's office has recommended just taking administrative adjustments out as entirely as a uh as a as a category of approval.

Um that we had recommended, we had already recommended removing most of them, and those will be removed.

Uh the few that that uh we had wanted to keep uh in the code uh specifically uh most of them had to do with uh parking and access, that uh ways to reduce the required number of parking spaces.

There were very specific parameters for how that was going to work.

The city attorney's office was comfortable with leaving those parameters in, just not with the term administrative adjustments, so that'll just be an option within the code to change the uh the parking that that won't be an adjustment to the code.

Um, there's an interpretation section uh within the review and decision making uh standards, which uh will just be completely removed.

Um that is basically a process for staff to provide a written interpretation of the code uh and you know provide that upon the request of an applicant.

Um the city attorney's feeling on that is that it's basically every every communication that we have with a with a property owner with or with anybody would be an interpretation of the code, and it basically the the way to uh handle that is to have to continue having it as it is to interpret the code and then have appeals going to the uh plan commission and board of zoning appeals as appropriate.

Um so it doesn't need to be a formal process.

Uh and then uh lastly, uh they would like to add standard standards for uh the review of the administrative site plan and architecture review.

Uh so this is the uh basically everything uh everything that you do as far as site plan and architecture review.

Uh we're adding the objective design standards throughout the code.

Most of those, or at least some of them will be able to be reviewed by staff and approved without going to the plan commission.

Um in the cases where uh they can't meet those standards, uh, it'll be brought back to the uh plan commission for review, um, but the the city attorney's office didn't want that to be just sort of carte blanche for the plan commission to do whatever it wanted in those cases.

Uh so they've asked us to add in some standards.

Uh so this is a sort of a draft of wording that'll be added to each of those the design development access landscape and possibly also the sign sections of the code, uh, which is what will be brought back, anything that will uh come to you for review.

Uh so this the wording that we've come up with is the the plan commission may authorize a modification, waiver, or reduction of the requirements of this section, uh, should it find that the proposed use or the nature of a proposed use development or redevelopment or the shape or size of a property make strict compliance impractical, unjust, unfair, or unreasonable.

Uh such exceptions shall be to the least extent necessary to address their cause and approval of exceptions shall be consistent with all applicable review criteria in uh the plan commission site plan and architecture review section.

So those review criteria are uh that all applicable standards of the municipal code are met, that the development proposal aligns with the goals, recommendations, and policies of the of the Walkershire comprehensive plan, and in the case of exceptions, uh the exception is not contrary to the purposes of the zoning ordinance.

Um just to uh um sort of note uh where this is coming from uh in 22.53, which is the section that covers parking requirements currently, uh this is this is the um statement that authorizes the plan commission to uh grant exceptions to that section.

So it it says the plan commission may authorize a modification or reduction or waiver of the of the parking requirements should the peculiar nature of the use or other exceptional shape or size of the property uh justify such an action, and then uh section 27.08 uh which uh is the section that covers sign variances, um allows an exception to the sign ordinance uh where there are special circumstances that make strict enforcement unjust and equitable, unfair or unreasonable, and that granting of variance would not negate the overall policy goals and purposes of this chapter.

reduction or waiver of the of the parking requirements should the peculiar nature of the use or other exceptional shape or size of the property uh justify such an action and then uh section 27.08 uh which uh is the section that covers sign variances um allows an exception to the sign ordinance uh where there are special circumstances that make strict enforcement unjust and equitable unfair or unreasonable and that granting a variance would not negate the overall policy goals and purposes of this chapter so in other words we tried to use the language that was similar to what is in the current code for the exceptions that come to the plan commission uh so how will this work in practice um basically exceptions will the important uh wording is that can't be contrary to the purpose of the zoning ordinance and and really they want it to be distinct from a variance uh so it should be a different process from what would be going to the board of zoning appeals for review and it in those cases there has to be uh they have to find that there is a uh specific hardship related to the property that's unique uh so the plan commission won't have that standard um so it'll it'll have to be sort of a different process so in other words the plan commission you know for instance in the case of a screening requirement the code will have a have specific requirements for screening and specific uh uh cases uh so in in in that case if an applicant does not want to meet that requirement um if there's a reason that that is related to the property of the project the plan commission could reduce the requirements or allow a different screening but saying we're just gonna not require screening altogether would be something that in the attorney's uh opinion would be contrary to the purpose of the zoning ordinance so that would have to go to the Board of Zoning Appeals as a variance uh so another example is uh building except materials exception can be approved if there's some alternative method something that's architecturally done to uh to make the building have a quality that would be uh consistent with the materials but the plan commission wouldn't be able to just say we don't want to have this requirement at all um that would be something that would also have to go to the Board of Zoning Appeals.

Okay any questions go ahead so in this no so we can't dis under this proposal we wouldn't be able to discard a requirement entirely how granular does that get so if we had a a property that had there was a requirement for screening to use this example if we said it didn't need screening on one side of the property for whatever reason wasn't visible or was impractical would we need to propose or would the applicant need to propose an alternate screening or because they've got screening on other parts of property we can say that you know you don't need it on the west side I I think that's a lot of it'll be up to you to to decide it'll just be it'll have to be we as staff will have to be conscious of of in our recommendations making it clear why you know if we feel a variance or not a very an exception is appropriate or not you know why it does or does it does not why it is or is not contrary to the purpose of the zoning ordinance and then you as the plan commission will have to be conscious of of those standards as you're making your review you know so it it could be in different circumstances it could be applied different ways but you just you don't want to be in this situation where you're completely wiping out what the what the so we we could modify where screening in this example modify where screening would be appropriate or required but we couldn't say that you know no screening is required because we don't feel like that's an important part for this parcel.

Right.

Okay.

Anyone else all right all right so uh just uh moving on to the uh the prairie sun courtyards uh so in the new code this we have we have uh different types of development that are uh categorized so this would be uh we feel like it would be a uh row home cluster um which is permitted in in the RN4 district uh the residential neighborhood for uh which which will be what the zoning is for this uh most likely is going forward um it is still a plan unit development and it is adjacent to properties which would not allow this type of use so it would come back to the plan commission for review um but we did want to go through just all of the the standards just to show how uh how they would be applied um so uh to start off the uh for the site plan uh the orientation there's uh one of the the design standards is that all uh row homes need to be oriented with their prime primary entrances either toward the designated front lot line or toward an interior courtyard space and if they are uh oriented toward a courtyard space uh the primary entrances of the end unit row homes closest to the front lot line uh need to be oriented toward the front lot line uh so they would have to change the orientation of a couple of these of these units to make that uh uh to make that work

So to start off, the for the site plan, the orientation, there's one of the design standards is that all row homes need to be oriented with their prime primary entrances either toward the designated front lot line or toward an interior courtyard space.

And if they are oriented toward a courtyard space, the primary entrances of the end unit row homes closest to the front lot line need to be oriented toward the front lot line.

So they would have to change the orientation of a couple of these of these units to make that uh to make that work.

Also the the uh uh row homes have to be staggered uh to do in order to define entrances and street edges.

Uh so that would be something that would have to be changed as well.

Um but overall uh the orientation would be uh for the most part would be acceptable.

Um for garages, uh garage if a garage is located on the flunt front plane of the uh of the the dwelling, it has to be set back at least one foot from the front facade.

Um there are standards for in cases where the second story extends over the garage, uh a two uh car garage is allowed, um, and then in some and in uh different uh circumstances where the garage is set fully back.

Uh in that case, a two-car garage would also be allowed, but it would have to be uh separate entrances for each car, and then in cases where it uh is uh right at the front plane of the of the building, it would have to be uh a single car garage, so it wouldn't be such a dominant feature uh on the building.

Um a minimum of one ingress and egress window is required on the front facade.

Uh and that's the zoning code as it's written current as it's written uh says as that term is defined in the building code.

Uh we've discussed that with uh some of the building inspectors, and they feel that uh a window on the second story as long as it's uh a window that you can open up and and could potentially get out of, uh, that that would be uh considered to be an egress window.

So in this case, that would that would be applicable.

Um as far as the building materials go, uh the facade that uh faces out towards the street uh needs to have at least 50% of the tier one materials.

Uh so that would include masonry, a masonry veneer.

It would include things like uh fiber cement siding, uh, but it would not include vinyl siding, so they would have had to uh uh change up the materials a little bit.

Um and the uh units each need to be there needs to be articulation through through the exterior design of the row home cluster so that you can identify the each unit from from uh one from another, and the code allows that to be accomplished through dormers, porches, vertical design elements, varying roof forms or other architectural uh devices.

So in this case, each unit does have a separate porch, so you can identify it that way.

We would probably want to see a little bit more articulation on the two porches in the center of these of these four unit buildings, uh, so that they are a little bit more distinguishable than uh just having the the divider in in between them.

Um as far as parking goes, uh in the uh in the what they had submitted, they had identified four and a half or four and a quarter parking spaces per unit.

So that was the two cars, uh two-car garages with the two spaces in front of the garages were each identified as spaces, and then there's the six uh the uh six visitor parking spaces.

Um the code would allow one and a half or would require one and a half parking spaces per unit, and then the maximum is 50% more than that minimum.

So two and a quarter spaces would be the maximum.

Um in this case, uh a parking space in front of the you know, the space in front of a garage could be counted as a parking space if it met the dimensional requirements, but would not have to be.

Uh so this would still uh would still qualify as far as parking goes.

And for landscaping, uh the total points in the in the landscape points formula that would be required based on the impervious area is 1,340 points.

Uh from the trees that they've shown uh that added up to 830 points.

Uh the smaller shrubs around the buildings was a total of 574.

So that came out to 1400, so that's a little bit more.

They would also get points uh based on the uh rain garden areas, so they would they would actually uh exceed the uh the point requirements uh by a by a pretty uh significant amount in this case.

Um so and then lastly, just to note the uh final joint plan commission council working session will be another special meeting on uh Wednesday, February 11th.

Um so you're all uh invited to that uh as well as the uh council members.

We will be presenting the entire code at that session, uh but that will be one last meeting where there will it'll be just discussion uh with no votes, and then we're hoping to have the code uh ready for uh recommendation uh at the uh regular plan commission meeting in uh on the fourth Wednesday in February.

So, real quick, just to write back orientation mostly good, garages no materials no articulation maybe parking, yes, landscaping, yes.

Exactly.

Okay.

Any other questions, comments?

Go ahead.

Um, yeah, I guess I'm just confused why we're hearing this after it was staff recommended.

This is this is the how it would be in the new code.

Um so it's the current code, it it's kind of it's based on the plan commission's design policies and and uh uh there aren't really these kind of specific requirements in the code.

This is how it'll be it will be uh going forward, so they will have to make you know they would have to present a different design, I guess, if they wanted to to just receive uh an approval for something like this.

You know, we do have quite a few developments that have been approved and not they're beyond the two years, and or even if they're within the two years, we're gonna be probably facing this a number of times for larger apartment buildings where they will no longer meet um our new code.

Yeah, so there might be some cases.

Doesn't seem I mean my feeling is that we've always struck strive for this standard.

We have not had great ways to articulate that, and that's what we always wanted, but these are the requirements now.

Right, and I guess I'm I'm I'm not saying that we need to be um try to address that.

I'm just saying that it will be in the future.

Um developers are gonna it sounds as though we're gonna the the developments as presented will have to meet a higher standard, even as they present them, otherwise they're gonna have to come to us.

All right, anything else?

There's no objections, we are adjourned.

Thank you.

Is this true?